In the year 1704 Mr Iohn Bernoulli 1671 Mr Newton was upon a designe of publishing his Theory of colours & Method of fluxions, but upon wrangling disputes arising about the theory of colours, he chose the sake of a quiet life he to laidy his designe aside before the Tract about the Method of fluxions was finished. There wanted that part wchwhich in wchwhich the method was to be taught of resolving Problems was cannot be reduced to Quadratures wchwhich related to the solution of Problemes not reducible to colours Quadratures. In this state things rested till the year 1676, & then he d out of what he had written five years before & other older Papers he composed the Book of Quadratures extracting it out of his old Papers, & in the year 1676 1704 published this Tract & his Theory of colours, And considering that Dr Wallis had said in the intro preface to the first Volume of his works without then being then contradicted that Mr Newton had in his Letters of 13 Iune & 24 Octob. 1676 explained to Mr Leibnitz the Method of fluxions found by him ten years before that or above & in the Introduction of the Tract of Quadratures said that he found the method of fluxions nine years gradually in the years 1665 & 1666, this being not so much as Dr Wallis had said nine years before (in the Preface to the first Volume of his works) without being then contradicted. But And the next year in the Acta Eruditorum for Ianuary, Mr a Paper was published without the name of the Author wchwhich is giving an account of the said Tract accuses it of plagiary in these words. Ingeniosissimus deinde Author [Newtonus] antequam ad Quadraturas Curvarum [ (vel potius figurarum curvilinearum) veniat præmittit brevem Isagogem. Quæ ut MELIVS INTELLIGATVR, sciendum est, cum magnitudo aliqua continuò crescit, incrementa illa momentanea appellari differentias, nempe inter magnitudinem quæ antea erat et quæ pen mutationem momentaneam est producta; atque hinc natum este Calculum integralem eique reciprocum summatorium, cujus elementa ab INVENTORE D. Godefrido Guilielmo Leibnitio in his Actis sunt tradita, varijque usus tum ab ipso tum a fratibus Bernoulijs tum a D. Marchione Hospitalio — sunt tradita, varijque usus tu ostensi Pro diffentijs igitur IGITVR Leibnitianis D. Newtonus adhibet semperque [pro ijsdem adhibuit Fluxiones — ijsque tum in suis Principijs Mathe Naturæ Mathematicis tum in alijs postea editis [pro differentijs Leibnitianis] eleganter est usus, QVEMADMODVM et Honoratus Fabrius in sua synopsi Geometrica, motuum progressus Cavallerianæ methodo substituit SVBSTITVIT. Dr Menkenius who printed this defatorydefamatory Paper ought to discover the name of the author that he may either prove the accusation or be looked upon as guilty of calumny.

This accusation gave a beginning to the late controversy about the author of the Method. For when the accusation was retorted contradicted by Dr Keill, Mr Leibnitz wrote twice to the R. S. against the Dr & in his second Letter dated 29 Decem 1711 justified the accusation saying that the Acta Lipsiensia had given every man his due & claiminedg a right to the Invention & affir representinedg that no body had gone before him in it; & only palliated the accusation by saying that he & his friends allowed that Mr Newton also attained the method by him self. self. And all this as much as to say that Mr Newton was only second not first inventor, & therefore committed a Act of Plagiary in pretending to have found the Method gradually in the years 1665 & 1666 & twhereby giving he gave himself a right to the method. For second Inventors have no right. It lay upon Mr Leibnitz therefore to prove that he was the first inventor.

Mr Leibnitz pressing the R. Society to condemn & silence Dr Keill they appointed a Committee to search out old Letters & Papers relating to this matter & report what they found in them, & then ordered the Papers & Report to be publist. And Mr Leibnitz avoided answering this Commercium Epistolicum to the day of his death: For the Book is matter of fact & uncapable of an answer, & establishes Mr Newton the first Inventor.

To avoid answering it he pretended the first year that he had not seen it nor had leasure to examin it, but had desired Mr Newton an emin Mathematician & unpartial Iudg appealed to the judgment of the first rank & well skilled in these things & impartial desiring him to examin it & give his judgment upon it. And his judgment upon it dated 13 Iune 16 1713 was inserted into a defamatory Letter dated Iuly 29 following, & published in a flying paper without the names of the Authors or printers or city where it was printed & dispersed it over all the western parts of Europe: a back biting infamous way of proceeding wchwhich in England is punishable by the civil Magistrate. This Paper has been since translated into French & inserted into another abusive Letter & answered by Dr Keill in Iuly 1714 & no Answer has yet been given to the Doctor. In his paper the Auth Mr Newton is accused of plagiary by both the authors in a more open manner & in a higher degree then before, & therefore the Au by the laws of all nationes the Authors ought to have proved their acusations upon pain of being deemed guilty of calumny. The Iudge pretends that when the Letters & Paper published in the Commercium were written Mr Newton did not so much as dream of his calculus of fluxions because there are no prickt letters in them; no nonor when he wrote his book of Principles, these letters not first appearing til in the third Volume of the book of Dr Wallis many years after the differential calculus had obteined in al every where, & Mr Newton not understanding knowing how to find the differences of differences long after it was familiar to others. But this impartial Iudge gave judgment contrary to the evidence wchwhich lay before him. For the Method of fluxions is taught in the Itrod without prickt letters in the Introduction to the very Book de Quadratura Curvarum, & prickt letters wthwith the Rule for finding finding all degrees of fluxions wasere p published A.C. 1693 three year in the second Volume of the works of Dr Wallis A.C. 1693, three years before any Rule for finding all degrees of differences came abroad. This candid Iudge cited Mr Iohn Bernoulli by the name of an eminent Mathematician as if he were Mr Bernoulli was not the author of the Iudgment & yet Mr Bernoulli was no Leibnitz in his Letters to Mr l'Abbé Conti, Ba the Comtess of Kilmansegge & Baron Bothmar that Mr Bernoulli himself was the author.

About November or December 16 1715

Mr Leibnitz in a Letter to Mr Chamberlain dated from Vienna 28 Apr. 1714, wrote that he had not yet seen the Commercium Epistolicum but & so could not make such an defence Appology as the thing required: but & a little after he wrote again to the to Mr Chamberlain that when he came to Hanover might print another Commercium & for that end desired that the Original Letters might be sent to him to be printed entirely & impartially. But upon reading this Letter to the Society, it was represented that98 that this was a reflexion upon their Committee, the the Originalls ought to be kept for justifying what had been published by the Order, & that Mr Newton was so far from publishing the CommercumCommercium himself that he did not so much as produce some ancient Letters in his own custody, & it as improper that Mr Leibnitz himself should be trusted with printing a Commercium, at least not untill the ancient Letters in his Custody should be examined & approved by them who knew the hands, & at the same time Mr Newton produced two ancient Letters wchwhich he had in custody without producing them to pbe published in the Commercium, the one written to him by Mr Leibnitz himself from Hanover $\frac{7}{17}$ Martij 1693, the other writter to him by Dr Wallis from Oxford Apr. 10th 1695. The first shews that Mr Leibnitz himself in the beginning of the year 1693 gave Mr Newton the preference at wchwhich time till the beginning of the year 1693 at which time he knew nothing more of Mr Newtons Method then what he had learnt from his Letters & Papers writ in or before the year 1676 & from his book of Principles & the second (compared with the Preface to the Doctor first Volume of the Doctors works) shews what opinion the English Mathematicians had of this matter before when they first heard that the Differential Method began to be celebrated in Holland as invented by Mr Leibnitz. These two Letters being examined & approved befor the Society were ordered to be laid up in their Archives & an Anwer was given to DMr Chamberlain that if Mr Leibintz had any ancient Letters relating to this matter & would send them to any friend in London to be examined before the R. Society by them who knew the hands, after they were approved he might either print them himself or have them printed in the Philosophical Transactions if he pleased: but nothing has been sent.